Yes, Pete has more Grand Slams right now.........patience, patience. In time his 14 will crumble.
Pete has NEVER had a yr that remotely comes close to the last THREE YEARS that Roger had. Check it up yourself.
Roger has the longest streak as numero uno in the modern era 9 surpassing Connors two weeks ago). Roger has the longest wins streaks EVER on hardcourt and grass.
Roger has more Grand Slams than Pete had , when Pete was Roger's current age).
A Agassi and J McEnroe have both stated Roger is the best they have ever seen. Agassi of course played both Roger and Sampras NUMEROUS times.
Pete's backhand doesn't come close to Roger's. Pete's game on clay is no comparison to Roger's, no doubt.
ALL that siad, if someone wants to believe Pete was better, that's fine, to each his own--BUT to say Pete 'WOULD HANDLE ROGER MOST OF THE TIME' , is entirely without merit, especially given there head-to-head (dont care if Pete was in the 'twilight' of his career when they faced off ON GRASS no less, whihc he wasn't he won a GS before ending his career!!--note Roger was NO WHERE near the same player when they met as he is today). THAT STATEMENT IS RUBBISH, and the main reason why I replied.
I have watched federer and he is without question the best tenis player I have ever seen... that being said it's not even close.
There is only one stat you need to throw out about Tiger:
The guy made 142 Consecutive Cuts.
Every cut made for 7 years straight.
This is without question the greatest feat in sports history. Anybody who has played golf before knows how absurd this is. I dont even know what Federer could do to match something like this becuase in Tenis there is nothing that compares. I guess Federer would have to go 7 years without 1 bad showing in any tourney (including the French).
My other two favorite Tiger Stats
-435 weeks ranked #1 in the World Golf Rankings
-The 2000 U.S. OPEN Margin of Victory of 15 Strokes. With nobody else under par... Tiger was sitting there at -12. IMO this is the single greatest performance in golf history.
I am shocked that this poll is 50/50... I feel like people are just now realizing how good federer is, and are forgetting what Tiger has done. Tiger has won the Grand Slam 2 times over... He can adapt his game for every type of course. Meanwhile, Federer has a weakness: the CLAY. It's a NO BRAINER
There is only one stat you need to throw out about Tiger:
The guy made 142 Consecutive Cuts.
Every cut made for 7 years straight.
This is without question the greatest feat in sports history. Anybody who has played golf before knows how absurd this is. I dont even know what Federer could do to match something like this becuase in Tenis there is nothing that compares. I guess Federer would have to go 7 years without 1 bad showing in any tourney (including the French).
My other two favorite Tiger Stats
-435 weeks ranked #1 in the World Golf Rankings
-The 2000 U.S. OPEN Margin of Victory of 15 Strokes. With nobody else under par... Tiger was sitting there at -12. IMO this is the single greatest performance in golf history.
I am shocked that this poll is 50/50... I feel like people are just now realizing how good federer is, and are forgetting what Tiger has done. Tiger has won the Grand Slam 2 times over... He can adapt his game for every type of course. Meanwhile, Federer has a weakness: the CLAY. It's a NO BRAINER
no brainer?
Woods has come out publically this week and said Federer is the most dominant athlete in the world (dont have the link, you can google it). Intersting he would say this, especially given his ego.
Federer does not have a weakness. He is 63-11 on clay since 2003. He has not won Roland Garros, is that what you mean?
Woods has won the Grand Slam? In a calender year? No he has not.
Let's see if Federer can win Roland Garros this yr, if he does he matches Woods' non-calender yr 4 GS in a row...AND the calender yr slam looms. BIG IF tho, Mr. Nadal is waiting at Paris.
Two great atletes, freaks if you will. Tough to say one is 'better' than the other. This MUCH I KNOW--in any given tournament, say this week--- WHO WOULD YOU PICK, put your monies on to win:
Woods at Doral OR Federer at Miami?? WHO WINS A GREATER % of their tournaments entered.
....i know i know, its "tougher to win a golf tournament".........
Woods has come out publically this week and said Federer is the most dominant athlete in the world (dont have the link, you can google it). Intersting he would say this, especially given his ego.
Federer does not have a weakness. He is 63-11 on clay since 2003. He has not won Roland Garros, is that what you mean?
Woods has won the Grand Slam? In a calender year? No he has not.
Let's see if Federer can win Roland Garros this yr, if he does he matches Woods' non-calender yr 4 GS in a row...AND the calender yr slam looms. BIG IF tho, Mr. Nadal is waiting at Paris.
Two great atletes, freaks if you will. Tough to say one is 'better' than the other. This MUCH I KNOW--in any given tournament, say this week--- WHO WOULD YOU PICK, put your monies on to win:
Woods at Doral OR Federer at Miami?? WHO WINS A GREATER % of their tournaments entered.
....i know i know, its "tougher to win a golf tournament".........
Golf is a very fickle game, and extremely hard to dominate. Through the course of a round there are so many good and bad breaks you must contend, including weather. One will playing in the morning with calm conditions while the afternoon guys play in Doral-like conditions yesterday.
So much luck in golf involved as well....good and bad bounces....a "perfect" putt will lip out...etc. Amazing to me with so many good players that Tiger wins as often as he does.
For example, I am a little better tennis player than my friend, yet I will win practically every time as through the course of a match the better player will generally always win. I am also a little better golfer than he is, yet he will beat me 4 out of 10 times because golf is just so unpredictable. So when a tennis player builds a game that is better than everyone else, it is somewhat predictable that he will win as the better player will generally come out on top.
On the other hand, as the WGC Match Play proved, the 50th best player in golf is fully capable of beating Tiger any day of the week because of the nature of the game. Yet the 50th player in Tennis has practiclly zero chance against Federer, because the most dominate player generally will always win.
In summary, we will very likely see other Federers come along every few years and have spurts of domination, but we will probably never, ever see another Tiger come along and do what he has done due to the nature of the game. In summary, tennis is way, way easier to dominate than golf is.
So much luck in golf involved as well....good and bad bounces....a "perfect" putt will lip out...etc. Amazing to me with so many good players that Tiger wins as often as he does.
For example, I am a little better tennis player than my friend, yet I will win practically every time as through the course of a match the better player will generally always win. I am also a little better golfer than he is, yet he will beat me 4 out of 10 times because golf is just so unpredictable. So when a tennis player builds a game that is better than everyone else, it is somewhat predictable that he will win as the better player will generally come out on top.
On the other hand, as the WGC Match Play proved, the 50th best player in golf is fully capable of beating Tiger any day of the week because of the nature of the game. Yet the 50th player in Tennis has practiclly zero chance against Federer, because the most dominate player generally will always win.
In summary, we will very likely see other Federers come along every few years and have spurts of domination, but we will probably never, ever see another Tiger come along and do what he has done due to the nature of the game. In summary, tennis is way, way easier to dominate than golf is.
A) I never said calendar year... I said he has 2 grand slams, meaning he has won each grand slam tourney at least twice.... FEDERER DOESNT HAVE ONE.
And B) yes I am reffering to ROLAND GARROS, considering that is the most important tourney on Clay. He has been owned by Nadal there. This would be like Tiger never being able to win the british open... just not the case.
AND FINALLY C) It's a hell of a lot harder to win a golf tourney than a tenis tourney. Federer will only compete vs. a handful of players... and he will directly effect the way each match is played. Tiger will be playing vs. dozens of players and can't effect the way any of them play. It's pretty simple actually if you think about it.
If you would like to explain to me how its harder for a great tenis player to win a tourney than a great golfer to win one I would love to hear it.
Just remember: 142 consecutive cuts... and 435 weeks at #1.
Consistently Dominant... Federer has a long way to go to match that.
And B) yes I am reffering to ROLAND GARROS, considering that is the most important tourney on Clay. He has been owned by Nadal there. This would be like Tiger never being able to win the british open... just not the case.
AND FINALLY C) It's a hell of a lot harder to win a golf tourney than a tenis tourney. Federer will only compete vs. a handful of players... and he will directly effect the way each match is played. Tiger will be playing vs. dozens of players and can't effect the way any of them play. It's pretty simple actually if you think about it.
If you would like to explain to me how its harder for a great tenis player to win a tourney than a great golfer to win one I would love to hear it.
Just remember: 142 consecutive cuts... and 435 weeks at #1.
Consistently Dominant... Federer has a long way to go to match that.
NO. He has not one ONE Grand Slam. He was won ALL majors. FYI a grand slam is winning all majors in a calender yr
you said its a ' no branier'--all i'm saying that its not. WOODS' recent comment seems to give me some validation. Care to explain why Tiger would say Roger is the planet's most dominant.
Elridk doesn't 'dominate' more----just check the lines--he's +200 or so or MORE to win Doral. Federer is -220 to win Miami. One is MORE LIKELY TO WIN---end of story. I DON T CARE is its easier to win a tennis tournment. The question here is who is more dominant in their respective sport--and its far from a no brainer, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOUR CHOICE picks the OTHER GUY!!!!!!!
I am referring to a Career Grand Slam... Tiger has won it 2 times over... I am not the only one who refers to this as a grand slam either... In fact most people call it that when a player has won all 4 majors.
Now that we got that settled. In terms of betting on who will win a tourney Federer is more dominant. In terms of one's chances of winning a given tourney Federer is more dominant.
But if you want to talk about who dominates their sport more... Tiger has been #1 in the world for 435 weeks. So there you have it.
How can you be more dominant than that???????
Federer wont even be the favorite for the French open now will he. Go find me the last time Tiger wasn't favored.
Now that we got that settled. In terms of betting on who will win a tourney Federer is more dominant. In terms of one's chances of winning a given tourney Federer is more dominant.
But if you want to talk about who dominates their sport more... Tiger has been #1 in the world for 435 weeks. So there you have it.
How can you be more dominant than that???????
Federer wont even be the favorite for the French open now will he. Go find me the last time Tiger wasn't favored.
And pete sampras was more dominant week in and week out when he played... and Nadal will be more dominant The week of the french open... That is just how Tenis is. I have already said that I believe Federer is the best Tenis player I have ever seen. And his last 3 years have been incredible. I just dont think he is where Tiger is right now. Whoever the best tenis player is at the time is going to be more dominant than whoerver the best Golfer is at the time in terms of week to week tourneys. Overall picture... just looking at impact on the sport and overall domination I feel Tiger is ahead, but Federer is younger so he still hasn't had as much time to impact his sport as tiger has.
i hear ya, and agree. federer must win Roland Garros end of story.
NEITHER of these two players holds the mark for most MAJORS WON in their respective sport (Tiger chasing Jack and Fed chasing Pete). I think when it's all said and done, both will though.
HOWEVER, if Federer wins the Grand Slam this year. (he already has the Aussie Open, one down 3 to go)........step aside rest of the world........:drink:
Perhaps this is neither here nor there, but Federer has been absolutely dreadful for the game. TV ratings are at all-time lows for tennis and I think it would actually be good for the game if Federer retired, as new exciting rivalries could emerge. They can't now because Federer is always in the finals. Tennis die-hards will likely be up in arms by my comments, but just look at the numbers of people watching now.
Tiger, on the other hand, is responsible for a ratings explosion in golf. People would rather watch Tiger win by 10 strokes than a sudden death playoff between other players. Federer simply doesn't have the charsima Tiger does. Seems like a nice guy, but just doesn't get the blood pumping.
Tiger, on the other hand, is responsible for a ratings explosion in golf. People would rather watch Tiger win by 10 strokes than a sudden death playoff between other players. Federer simply doesn't have the charsima Tiger does. Seems like a nice guy, but just doesn't get the blood pumping.
dreadful for the game? ratings will always be 'low' in the US. Tennis is a niche sport there now. No American top players mean yucky t.v ratings. If Federer was American, I wonder if things would be different in America. The US Open finals wouls typically have very good ratings when it was Sampras Vs Agassi in the final......put Federer Vs Nalbandian and get ready for a US rating BEATING.
If Woods wasn't American, how would ratings in golf be? BTW i think golf's audience may be dwindling a little--as ABC didnt renew forcing Timmy to marry The Golf Channel.
